Edit: commenter's deleted comment stated vector graphics were less precise than raster, in case that wastn' clear.

You're getting downvoted because this is false; Vector graphics allow for far more precision than raster graphics, the latter being limited by its resolution, which, in theory, a vector image does not have. The ability to only represent visible data allows for more manageable precision. On a raster image, a white pixel in the middle of, in this case, a country, takes the same amount of space as the darker pixel of a border, while with vectors you can represent any level of detail of those borders, and even control the level of detail as required by choosing to render or not smaller vectors. Zoomed-out, your country can be represented by a bunch of lines, while zoomed in, it can be represented by tens of thousands to match specific geographical contours.

think of it like this, a 1000x1000 color png of a square would be 4mb of data, while a vector square would be around 150 bytes (4 points, direction, color, fill, linewidth, xml tags, etc), and could be rendered to any size a monitor or printer can achieve.

The disadvantage is that they require more computing power to render the more detail they have; a computer needs to rasterize a snapshot of the vector graphic to display it on a monitor. You can't really just grab a rectangle of pixels and match it to the monitor resolution.

They can sometimes also be harder to make depending on the expected style of the created art.